At least you have mature arguments - no debate there. We now have a solid lock on the demographics here. Perhaps I can throw in some Pro-Wrestling references too. Don't want to overshoot the audience.

Says the guy who can't stop drawing comparisons to theft and smoking pot. Sorry, to say you set the bar for immaturity would be an understatement, I'm sorry you can't find [sane] people who appreciate your presence.

Says the guy who can't stop drawing comparisons to theft and smoking pot. Sorry, to say you set the bar for immaturity would be an understatement, I'm sorry you can't find [sane] people who appreciate your presence.

Says the person who missed the point on the laws pertaining to both. What level of reading comprehension are we talking about again?

What does that have to do with ANYTHING? They paid for a story and pictures from a freelancer, and he's the editor / owner of Gawker - but hey - nice twitter!

WOW - does anyone here even know how this all went down? And after having that accurate scenario info - you're going to apply law to it too?

OW ow ow - hurt hurt hurt....

OK, let's just end this now. You pretty clearly got schooled on the law showing it's not legal in either CA or NY to keep, let alone sell, found property. You've annoyingly ignored the posts pointing out applicable NY laws, which don't really matter anyway, because you can't commit a crime in one state and then just run to another state and say neener neener.

So now, you've switched your argument to some alternate reality version of how things went down, in which an unaffiliated, rogue freelancer paid $5k for the prototype, then photographed it, held it on camera, and took it apart. But here on planet Earth, here's how it went down.

- Gizmodo/Denton has admitted to paying for the phone.
- Gizmodo editor Jason Chen took video of himself holding the phone.
- Gizmodo said they themselves took it apart to show the insides, but could only go so far because they didn't want to return it to Apple broken (even though they very well might have broken it).
- Lastly, Bruce Sewell, Apple's VP and General Counsel, sent an official letter to Gizmodo. This letter says Gizmodo is in possession of the phone and Brian Lam smugly tells Bruce that Jason Chen has the phone.

They (perhaps) broke a California law. Gawker (owners of Gizmodo) is based in NYC. So what.

Hey - I got an idea - medical pot is legal in California - light up a joint in front of a policeman in New York City. Or a DEA office in Washington DC. Let me know how that works out for you, and don't forget to forward me the mug-shots.

Your comparison makes no sense. I am not a lawyer so I won't argue what the law is and where, but:

According to you, Gizmodo didn't break a law because they are based in NYC where it's not illegal.

The proper comparison would be that you smoked medical pot in California (where it's legal) but it was obtained from NYC (where it's illegal)

OK, let's just end this now. You pretty clearly got schooled on the law showing it's not legal in either CA or NY to keep, let alone sell, found property. You've annoyingly ignored the posts pointing out applicable NY laws, which don't really matter anyway, because you can't commit a crime in one state and then just run to another state and say neener neener.

So now, you've switched your argument to some alternate reality version of how things went down, in which an unaffiliated, rogue freelancer paid $5k for the prototype, then photographed it, held it on camera, and took it apart. But here on planet Earth, here's how it went down.

- Gizmodo/Denton has admitted to paying for the phone.
- Gizmodo editor Jason Chen took video of himself holding the phone.
- Gizmodo said they themselves took it apart to show the insides, but could only go so far because they didn't want to return it to Apple broken (even though they very well might have broken it).
- Lastly, Bruce Sewell, Apple's VP and General Counsel, sent an official letter to Gizmodo. This letter says Gizmodo is in possession of the phone and Brian Lam smugly tells Bruce that Jason Chen has the phone.

Welcome to school, you smug moron.

Personal attacks aside (oh that stung too), I still don't see the law applying to NY as defined in CA, I don't see the source of the Twitter holding the phone (how he's going to jail is going to be tricky since it never went to NY), I don't see any charges, I don't see how something that happened in CA is going to get a bunch of pictures sent out of NY getting someone in NY arrested for possession of something they didn't have.

I fault Apple Insider Moderators and Webmasters for allowing the continued descent of this forum to the abyss.

I am not big on banning or ignoring people, no matter how I may disagree with them. Personally, I do not believe in not responding to falsehoods and not pointing out avasions ... because that may be misconstrued by the less informed.

But, come on, there must be a limit.

Also, if it is true that there are people who keep on popping up, masquerading under different usernames... that must not me be let to fester.

I am not techie, but if Apple Insider cannot find a more effective solution to this problems, what is the point of having a forum?

It has been PALATABLE interacting with you! What??? *sigh* [Refer to previous posts if you did not get this.]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iStud

Quote:

Originally Posted by cgc0202 View Post
palatable?

roflmao

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mister Sweaters

if this is how he argues points, I'm afraid to ask how he was potty-trained.

No I don't speculate on what other aliases you may have used. It is clear that you are not in control of you faculties so it is irrelevant. But clearly not as intelligent as Tek. You are not even close to being in his league.

No I don't speculate on what other aliases you may have used. It is clear that you are not in control of you faculties so it is irrelevant. But clearly not as intelligent as Tek. You are not even close to being in his league.

Well you're just a Tekstud!

So there!

(hey I'm getting the hang of this aren't I?)

I have control of a finger tho - it's right in front of the screen in response for the personal attack you ... you Tekstudder.

Because only group think is tolerated and that's what makes a conversation interesting isn't it?

"NAH - BAN HIM raaarrrwwwwrrr - I don't wike him - he won't think like I do - RAARR"...

Interestingly, this is a perfect description of the comments on articles over at Gizmodo. Giz is famous for doing exactly that (Brian Lam's "ban hammer"); for basically shouting down anyone who doesn't agree with the Gizmodo group think.

On the topic of the actual article, at least we will soon know who the actual original thief is if the police are investigating.

Anyone who doesn't believe Gizmodo's whiny little dudes aren't going to immediately tell the Cops who they bought it off of is dreaming. The fact that they bought stolen goods is a slam dunk and once the Police inform Mr. Lam and Mr. Chen of exactly what the possible jail-time for that is they are going to sing like the little scared birdies they are.

The guy who actually stole the phone and got the $5,000 is going to be thrown to the wolves in 3, 2, 1 ...

Personal attacks aside (oh that stung too), I still don't see the law applying to NY as defined in CA, I don't see the source of the Twitter holding the phone (how he's going to jail is going to be tricky since it never went to NY), I don't see any charges, I don't see how something that happened in CA is going to get a bunch of pictures sent out of NY getting someone in NY arrested for possession of something they didn't have.

But then possession seems to be key in all this last I checked.

But don't mind me - I'm so smug I call people morons. I'm that smug.

Man, you are thick. Did you read the link in my post? Apple's head lawyer said Gizmodo was in possession of the phone. I understand that you get off on arguing just for the sake of it, and you will continue to shift the argument even when blatantly proven wrong.

Interestingly, this is a perfect description of the comments on articles over at Gizmodo. Giz is famous for doing exactly that (Brian Lam's "ban hammer"); for basically shouting down anyone who doesn't agree with the Gizmodo group think.

On the topic of the actual article, at least we will soon know who the actual original thief is if the police are investigating.

Anyone who doesn't believe Gizmodo's whiny little dudes aren't going to immediately tell the Cops who they bought it off of is dreaming. The fact that they bought stolen goods is a slam dunk and once the Police inform Mr. Lam and Mr. Chen of exactly what the possible jail-time for that is they are going to sing like the little scared birdies they are.

The guy who actually stole the phone and got the $5,000 is going to be thrown to the wolves in 3, 2, 1 ...

If Apple actually decides to hand Gawker a ton of page-views in protracting this - yes - I think the person who actually got the money and found the phone in the first place is going to be thrown under a bus. They already outed the engineer. Why not.

Still think it would be insane to give Gawker more ratings tho. Is Apple that petty?

Nah I can't comment on that anymore because I'm thick and smug - and tekstud, Macwhoever and a dozen other aliases. I'm more interested in what Apple would stand to gain from all this that Gawker wouldn't gain from even more.

(And while Chen might be liable - how is that going to touch Nick in NY who never had the phone? That's still being side-stepped I see - ok I lied about the thread being dropped)

Nah I can't comment on that anymore because I'm thick and smug - and tekstud, Macwhoever and a dozen other aliases. I'm more interested in what Apple would stand to gain from all this that Gawker wouldn't gain from even more.

Co'mon guy. You are not thick (smug perhaps). Anyway... who took the video? Can you rise to the challenge?

Co'mon guy. You are not thick (smug perhaps). Anyway... who took the video? Can you rise to the challenge?

No idea - probably Chen - or someone who can't make Chen look less horrifying up close - gah. But nobody in NY - and that's what everyone is on about (GAWKER is going DOWN etc). Chen might - certainly the mystery man whose about to become a bus speedbump (the guy in the bar) - but not Nick, and that Twitter graphic was Nick right?

No idea - probably Chen - or someone who can't make Chen look less horrifying up close - gah. But nobody in NY - and that's what everyone is on about (GAWKER is going DOWN etc). Chen might - certainly the mystery man whose about to become a bus speedbump (the guy in the bar) - but not Nick, and that Twitter graphic was Nick right?

Nah I can't comment on that anymore because I'm thick and smug - and tekstud, Macwhoever and a dozen other aliases. I'm more interested in what Apple would stand to gain from all this that Gawker wouldn't gain from even more.

(And while Chen might be liable - how is that going to touch Nick in NY who never had the phone? That's still being side-stepped I see - ok I lied about the thread being dropped)

And just as predicted, the arguments shift yet again. Now he has 2 lines of arguments with which to entertain himself! Nick owns Gawker which owns Gizmodo, and he authorized the payment.

I honestly couldn't care about your new toy (what Apple has to gain). Your intention is to argue, not discuss, and you've already shown you don't know what you're talking about. It's too bad your actual arguments are weak.

No idea - probably Chen - or someone who can't make Chen look less horrifying up close - gah. But nobody in NY - and that's what everyone is on about (GAWKER is going DOWN etc). Chen might - certainly the mystery man whose about to become a bus speedbump (the guy in the bar) - but not Nick, and that Twitter graphic was Nick right?

"Asked whether he's concerned his company may have committed a crime in buying the phone, Denton says that Gaby Darbyshire, Gawker Media's chief operating officer, researched the relevant case law and came away satisfied that Gizmodo was in the clear. Moreover, Denton says Gizmodo, having reaped its page view harvest, is working to learn the identity of the person who lost possession of the phone and will return it to that person, or to anyone who establishes a legal claim to it."

There is Nick Denton admitting that his company bought the phone. It's too bad he asked a former British barrister for a legal opinion on California laws.